Huge REF Questions: I am not sure what this mean....Please give inputs

Bhola2004

Registered Users (C)
Details REF: Don't know how to address this
Please provide inputs. Don't know it's possible or not.

The evidence initially submitted does not satisfactorily demonstrate the alien’s eligibility for the benefit requested:

1. Other than research grant, travel grant, scholarships, provide evidence of significant awards that the alien has received as a result of his individual efforts, i.e Nobel Prize, Burger etc…..bla bla bla…..

2. Testimonials describe the alien’s work/contribution as important, invaluable and significant. Please provide evidence of the formal recognition that he has received for his monumental research.

3. If, applicable, identify the requirements that must be met for an individual to qualify for membership in EACH of the professional organizations of which the beneficiary is currently a member. The organization’s charters must be submitted to substantiate membership criteria, selection procedures and associated dues, if applicable.
ALSO, the documentation submitted must identify the various levels of membership within the organization i.e diplomat, associate….

4. Provide additional evidence, from individuals outside the alien’s prior and immediate circle of colleagues and acquaintances, which validates the alien’s individual contributions and ability as being original and exceptional.
The service is especially interested in seeing articles from professional journals that specifically talk about the alien and significance of his career discoveries.

5. As applicable provide evidence for topic/speaker selection criteria for each of the prestigious speaking engagements. Also, identify whether he was a keynote speaker or invited speaker.

6. Submit evidence which clearly demonstrates that the alien is one of the foremost leading authorities within his field and that his personal performance has/will SUBSTANTIALLY influence, above and beyond that any of other researcher.

7. If applicable present evidence that the alien’s associated patents have been broadly commercialize….

8. You might specify what consequences would occur if the alien were unable to continue his/her participation in the research activity (Substantiate all claims with supportive documentation)….

9. How would/has the alien’s participation in the program or activity have/had greater impact than others in the field? Would the alien’s absence standstill or negatively impact the US economy? Claims should be substantiate with…/

10. Submit a letter that specify how the alien intends to continue to serve and work in the area that is claimed to be in the national interest.


In closing, you must establish, in some capacity, your ability to serve the national interest to a substantially greater extent than the majority of your colleagues……..


I am Ph.D: submitted 8 articles (6 first authors), 8 independent letters, 1 invited talk, few citations, few reviews from journals and NSF, members of three society ( 2 elected), over 4 years post doc experience...
I don't know what they want.

Blola2004
:confused:
 
Bhola2004 said:
Details REF: Don't know how to address this
Please provide inputs. Don't know it's possible or not.

The evidence initially submitted does not satisfactorily demonstrate the alien’s eligibility for the benefit requested:

1. Other than research grant, travel grant, scholarships, provide evidence of significant awards that the alien has received as a result of his individual efforts, i.e Nobel Prize, Burger etc…..bla bla bla…..

2. Testimonials describe the alien’s work/contribution as important, invaluable and significant. Please provide evidence of the formal recognition that he has received for his monumental research.

3. If, applicable, identify the requirements that must be met for an individual to qualify for membership in EACH of the professional organizations of which the beneficiary is currently a member. The organization’s charters must be submitted to substantiate membership criteria, selection procedures and associated dues, if applicable.
ALSO, the documentation submitted must identify the various levels of membership within the organization i.e diplomat, associate….

4. Provide additional evidence, from individuals outside the alien’s prior and immediate circle of colleagues and acquaintances, which validates the alien’s individual contributions and ability as being original and exceptional.
The service is especially interested in seeing articles from professional journals that specifically talk about the alien and significance of his career discoveries.

5. As applicable provide evidence for topic/speaker selection criteria for each of the prestigious speaking engagements. Also, identify whether he was a keynote speaker or invited speaker.

6. Submit evidence which clearly demonstrates that the alien is one of the foremost leading authorities within his field and that his personal performance has/will SUBSTANTIALLY influence, above and beyond that any of other researcher.

7. If applicable present evidence that the alien’s associated patents have been broadly commercialize….

8. You might specify what consequences would occur if the alien were unable to continue his/her participation in the research activity (Substantiate all claims with supportive documentation)….

9. How would/has the alien’s participation in the program or activity have/had greater impact than others in the field? Would the alien’s absence standstill or negatively impact the US economy? Claims should be substantiate with…/

10. Submit a letter that specify how the alien intends to continue to serve and work in the area that is claimed to be in the national interest.


In closing, you must establish, in some capacity, your ability to serve the national interest to a substantially greater extent than the majority of your colleagues……..


I am Ph.D: submitted 8 articles (6 first authors), 8 independent letters, 1 invited talk, few citations, few reviews from journals and NSF, members of three society ( 2 elected), over 4 years post doc experience...
I don't know what they want.

Blola2004
:confused:

1) They want everything about your awards.

2) They want better recommendation letters about your scientific achievements.

3) They want more information about you memberships. How you got elected and why. Get everything from those organizations.

4) More and better recommenadation letters about your achievements. List of your citations and especially list of citation which discuss your research in detail.

5) Get letters from your talk that you were invited by them as a keynote speaker because of your outstanding achievements.

6) They want better recommendation letters about your scientific achievements.

7) Show that your patents have a commercial impact.

8) The normal NIW problems about why LC is not fast enough for you.

9) National interest of you work

10) Obvious.

Overall it looks like you ddin;t present your case in a good way. You need stronger evidences for nearly all criteria.
 
Thanks for the input

1) I don't have awards like Nobel etc... How to face this. I have a scholarship award from CSIR/INDIA. Nimination for DAAD which I included in the petetition.

2) I thought all the recommendation letters were good and touched key points. I am not sure what I missed.....

3) They want more information about you memberships. How you got elected and why. Get everything from those organizations- probably I can ask the society for a letter etc...

4) I can look for more recommendation letter. But, I don't have a citation which discuss my research in details... or a paragraph in details....

5) Get letters from your talk that you were invited by them as a keynote speaker because of your outstanding achievements- I already included a letter for a invited talk in INDIA

6) They want better recommendation letters about your scientific achievements- please explain. I thought my letter were extensive and were not from my colleagues

7) Show that your patents have a commercial impact- I don't have one.

8) The normal NIW problems about why LC is not fast enough for you- whether self explanation would work?

9) National interest of you work- probably I can explain.

10) Obvious- I will remain in my field.

Overall it looks like you ddin;t present your case in a good way. You need stronger evidences for nearly all criteria- you may be right but I am not sure whether they looked at my case seriously or not. Because, if I could have been won the Nobel, I would not be ask for a GC

Anyway, thanks for your inputs. Do, you think it's all negetive? do I have a chance here?
bhola
 
Don't be discouraged.

It seems to me your RFE might have been generated from a template with each argument modified to fit your case. The adjudicator might not have read your application very carefully or your application was not organized in the most readable manner.

In any case, don't worry about addressing every one of the issues raised in the RFE, but really try to highlight your strong points of your case specifically TARGETING the 3 prongs of NIW.

In my opinion, outside 8 and 10 (and part of 9), all of the other requests really are the "third prong" issue. You shouldn't have problem arguing 8 and 10 -- remember there're many ways to argue national interest, especially for scientists and engineers, and benefits to economy is hardly the only way.

The hard part is to convince the adjudicator you're going to make "significantly greater contributions" to the field then the U.S. workers with "ostensibly the same qualifications" (third prong). This is where everyone plays to their strengths and avoids their weaknesses. If you don't have hard evidences such as high impact factor journal publications and high citations, you want to really highlight your review activities, invited talk and use letters from editors, independent witnesses to establish you're the recognized expert, "top in the field"... Also your witness letters should have _detailed discussions_ about your research as opposed to general comments like "Dr. XXX's research is great and of national interest" -- again due to your lack of citation records, you have to rely on reference letters to establish the impact of your work.

Make sure to write a concise and to-the-point response letter addressing the three prongs of NIW clearly, referencing your supporting documents the way you write a paper. Don't overwhelm the adjudicator with poorly focused pile of documents, which will only serve to obscure your strong points.

Remember to quote the Yates memo -- it's no longer "zero tolerance" but "preponderance of evidence". You don't have to prove your case "beyond a reasonable doubt", just "more likely than not".

Finally, it's always better to write correct English. If you don't have an attorney, ask a native speaker friend to proofread your letter.

Good luck!
 
Thanks

Thanks weakunix for giving me hope. Actually, I was pretty surprised when I looked at the questions.
I do have proof of reviewing Proposals submitted for a grant to government agency. Few more journal reviews, 2 more letters (one from a senetor). Though I don't know I should submit the letter fron a senetor or not ( don't know pos/neg).

What else I should collect I don't know at this point. Friends give me more inputs. I appreciete your help.
Bhola 2004.
:eek:
 
Bhola2004 said:
Thanks weakunix for giving me hope. Actually, I was pretty surprised when I looked at the questions.
I do have proof of reviewing Proposals submitted for a grant to government agency. Few more journal reviews, 2 more letters (one from a senetor). Though I don't know I should submit the letter fron a senetor or not ( don't know pos/neg).

What else I should collect I don't know at this point. Friends give me more inputs. I appreciete your help.
Bhola 2004.
:eek:


As mentioned by weakunix you shouldn't address all ten criteria (I just listed them because I don't know your background). Focus on the ones you have the strongest evidences and address the third prong. Since you don't have citation it is very very important to get excellent reference letters addressing your impact on the scientific community. And let people who have done the GC process successfully read your reference letters. You might think they are good enough but perhaps some keywords are missing. A letter from a senator doesn't hurt but you need excellent letters from top scienstists in your field to show your outstanding impact on your field and you won't get it from a letter from a senator. Get also letters to confirm that you reviewed proposals and journals by personal invitation through the editor/head of agency because of your outstanding achievements. It is important to show that you got this review work without the help from any other person, like PhD, postdoc advisor etc.
Go through all ten criteria and ask yourself honestly if your evidences are really good enough to show your outstanding impact on your field (the keyword is outstanding not impact) and if this apparent by those evidences to an outside person.
 
I need more suggession

Hello all,

I need more suggession/help for the REF. Please give your inputs/experiences.

Thanks in advance.
Bhola
 
Top